ST. LOUIS – St. Louis Blues Executive Vice President and General Manager Doug Armstrong announced Friday the club has acquired a conditional fourth or fifth round draft pick in 2015 from New Jersey in exchange for forward Matt D’Agostini and a conditional seventh round draft pick in 2015.

D’Agostini, 26, has dressed in 16 games for the Blues this season posting two points (one goal, one assist) and two penalty minutes.

Overall, the 6-foot, 198-pound forward has appeared in six National Hockey League (NHL) seasons, including parts of the last four with the Blues, accumulating 91 points (45 goals, 46 assists) and 115 penalty minutes in 254 career games.

The Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario native was originally acquired by the Blues from Montreal in exchange for Aaron Palushaj on March 2, 2010.

Salary dump of a guy who wasn't jelling in the current system, that's all.

We need the cap space, we weren't going to re-sign him anyway... might as well get SOMETHING for the guy. D'Agostini blew away all of our (admittedly low) expectations when he came here, and I definitely won't forget his 20 goal season. In a perfect world, we would've kept him around, he would've played more, jelled more with the system and been a productive player.

As it was, we weren't realistically going to re-sign the guy given our salary issues this summer so we made a move sooner rather than later Wish him the best of luck. Nothing but love for the guy.

1.6 Mill is a salary dump?Note: As his sponsor I didn't approve of this trade, I need some answers!

The trade was made because Oshie is coming off the IR for tomorrow's game. That would put the Blues over the roster limit, so if they tried to send anyone down (i.e. Porter, Elliott, D'ags) they would have to clear waivers. To avoid that, the Blues traded D'ags. At this point, like others have said in the thread, he didn't really have a role on this team. I liked D'ags, the Devils are getting an underrated player who scored 20 goals just a few years back. That said, I'd rather they get the low pick than for them to lose him on waivers for nothing.

Fact is, with everyone healthy, D'ags is in the pressbox every game. They may still try to send Ells down or trade him, we don't know. Strick just tweeted that if the Devs resign Dags, the Blues get their 7th rounder back and get a 4th rounder on top of the 5th they've already got. Suffice it to say, a guy in the press box every night doesn't have a high trade value.

But if this doesn't tell you we are shopping one of our goalies, you're just dumb and not paying attention...no matter what Army tells Strickland and JR to tell us.

They aren't carrying three goalies all year. If they didn't want to risk Elliot on waivers it's because we either hope to trade him, or think we'll need him to be the #2 if we trade Halak (even if they say he's "going nowhere").

Personally I would think/hope they are trying to find a market for Elliot. But with the salary crunch coming this offseason it's tough to watch 3.75 mill sitting on the bench in Halak.

They should have sent Elliott down. Tough shit if he doesn't clear waivers. I find it very hard to believe that, barring an injury, he'll ever play another game in the note.

Allen hasn't played enough games to simply give him the backup job by sending Elliott down.If Allen starts to struggle, the Blues will probably send him down and let Elliott try to win the backup job back.

They should have sent Elliott down. Tough shit if he doesn't clear waivers. I find it very hard to believe that, barring an injury, he'll ever play another game in the note.

Allen hasn't played enough games to simply give him the backup job by sending Elliott down.If Allen starts to struggle, the Blues will probably send him down and let Elliott try to win the backup job back.

The problem with sending Ells down is that we are going to take a hit on his contract, whether he clears waivers or not (1.8m for 2 years as it stands, have no idea how much we'd be responsible for if a team cleared him off waivers) and I think given the team's economic situation that they're going to keep him and Halak as-is (unless they're traded or packaged off for a trade, of course), especially considering Jake isn't costing us jack atm.

They should have sent Elliott down. Tough shit if he doesn't clear waivers. I find it very hard to believe that, barring an injury, he'll ever play another game in the note.

Allen hasn't played enough games to simply give him the backup job by sending Elliott down.If Allen starts to struggle, the Blues will probably send him down and let Elliott try to win the backup job back.

The problem with sending Ells down is that we are going to take a hit on his contract, whether he clears waivers or not (1.8m for 2 years as it stands, have no idea how much we'd be responsible for if a team cleared him off waivers) and I think given the team's economic situation that they're going to keep him and Halak as-is (unless they're traded or packaged off for a trade, of course), especially considering Jake isn't costing us jack atm.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum